Journal of Socionics

[tcaudilllg]

How much analytical psychology actually uses concrete evidence? (Genuine question, I'm not sure how much Jung and etc. have been proven or accepted by psychology).

The evidence is indeed inconcrete; it's based on probability. Given anecdotal evidence, is proposition A true or its antithesis, proposition B? Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle, but you're still saying that the proposition of either A or B is false, which is a step forward from where you were.

If you're a gamma, you probably aren't gonna spend a lot of time trying to verify the truth value of propositions through thought experiment alone. Valued vs unvalued and all that.

You make a good argument about the journal, and I might be more for it if I didn't suspect a projection-based bias against certain directions in socionics thought. I see this more as a format for attacking mine and hitta's ideas, which hmmkr apparently wants to do, than airing new directions in socionics thought. Popular ideas, if accurate, are exalted in journal format because any deep seated biases in the editors goes unchecked. Unpopular ideas, even if accurate, are intentionally not published.

I think hmmkr's calculation is that you'll overlook his abuses of power against certain people and ideas if you think there is something in it for you. He's counting on your selfishness and indifference.

[Creepy-male]

The neuroscientists wouldn't bother targeting a socionics journal until it got big enough, and then they will would only target it if it conflicted with their own interest. Science vs Theism isn't even an academic issue its a political one, and journals are not that political. If socionics was used to a political end it would transmit into that realm, and it could but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I just want to know what the standards for the journal are in a clear way to dodge any future bullshit about censorship etc that may come up.

[tcaudilllg]

The neuroscientists wouldn't bother targeting a socionics journal until it got big enough, and then they will would only target it if it conflicted with their own interest. Science vs Theism isn't even an academic issue its a political one, and journals are not that political. If socionics was used to a political end it would transmit into that realm, and it could but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I just want to know what the standards for the journal are in a clear way to dodge any future bullshit about censorship etc that may come up.

They wouldn't target the journal -- they'd target the people who associated with it. Career destruction.

[Saberstorm]

They wouldn't target the journal -- they'd target the people who associated with it. Career destruction.

Take your pills, Grandma!

[Creepy-bg]

Neuroscientist

[The Ineffable]

Take your pills, Grandma!

My impression is that tcaud understands the game of power much more than you do... The general assumption that scientists are honest and are there only for the truth is justified just up to a certain extent.

[Saberstorm]

My impression is that tcaud understands the game of power much more than you do... The general assumption that scientists are honest and are there only for the truth is justified just up to a certain extent.

Our competitor is Meyers Briggs - hardly an academic power to be feared. Any academic correlation with Socionics is fine, even if they studied it and are "ripping it off." It serves to prove our point and makes it easier to spread the word. Essentially, there is no "power" here. The endeavor of Socionics is not really commercial, and not really academic. It could be repackaged as either, but in doing so you need to “rip it off" in order to let it grow. What I mean is you would need to convert it into the language and methodology of neuroscience or the method and language of modern day Human Resource Management as taught in a business school.

By the nature of intellectual property law, the person or entity that makes that RADICAL conversion (adds value and so on) is the rightful owner - not the originator of the idea. It is who executes it that owns it. It always has been. If the conversion is more conervative, then they might need to aquire a license.

Look at the schisms that exist on this forum such as Astonians and Krigians. They changed Socionics. They could own it if they made enough changes - enough "innovative steps" as it is called in patent law. Any conversion of Socionics into neuroscience would make significant changes to Socionics - enough that Socionics would only be its ancestor.

Only a direct copying of it can be protected.

[mu4]

Our competitor is Meyers Briggs - hardly an academic power to be feared. Any academic correlation with Socionics is fine, even if they studied it and are "ripping it off." It serves to prove our point and makes it easier to spread the word. Essentially, there is no "power" here. The endeavor of Socionics is not really commercial, and not really academic. It could be repackaged as either, but in doing so you need to “rip it off" in order to let it grow. What I mean is you would need to convert it into the language and methodology of neuroscience or the method and language of modern day Human Resource Management as taught in a business school.

By the nature of intellectual property law, the person or entity that makes that conversion (adds value and so on) is the rightful owner - not the originator of the idea. It is who executes it that owns it. It always has been.

Look at the schisms that exist on this forum such as Astonians and Krigians. They changed Socionics. They could own it if they made enough changes - enough "innovative steps" as it is called in patent law. Any conversion of Socionics into neuroscience would make significant changes to Socionics - enough that Socionics would only be its ancestor.

Only a direct copying of it can be protected.

Pretty much this. Socionics wasn't created in the standard academic or commercial setting, but rather as samizdat. The goal is to give it a shot, see if it's validated or destroyed. MBTI is the major competitor to Socionics and I find it kinda of funny that people are so paranoid about their own reputations or "career". At this point, most of the "theorists" in Socionics are fringe elements of a fringe element. I'm interested in Socionics and I see Model A as a far better version of typology than MBTI. I don't think the alternative models provide comprehensible information regarding typology and I would rather focus on Socionics and promote it as a alternative to MBTI. If you really want to be heard, write good material and explain it clearly. Then keep promoting it with various formats, website/wiki/blog/journal/word of mouth/etc. I believe Socionics to be of a high potential and good material and as long as the efforts are put in to present Socionics to the larger community of interested people, not just academics, it will eventually be proven the better typology.

[tcaudilllg]

Our competitor is Meyers Briggs - hardly an academic power to be feared. Any academic correlation with Socionics is fine, even if they studied it and are "ripping it off." It serves to prove our point and makes it easier to spread the word. Essentially, there is no "power" here. The endeavor of Socionics is not really commercial, and not really academic. It could be repackaged as either, but in doing so you need to “rip it off" in order to let it grow. What I mean is you would need to convert it into the language and methodology of neuroscience or the method and language of modern day Human Resource Management as taught in a business school.

By the nature of intellectual property law, the person or entity that makes that RADICAL conversion (adds value and so on) is the rightful owner - not the originator of the idea. It is who executes it that owns it. It always has been. If the conversion is more conervative, then they might need to aquire a license.

Look at the schisms that exist on this forum such as Astonians and Krigians. They changed Socionics. They could own it if they made enough changes - enough "innovative steps" as it is called in patent law. Any conversion of Socionics into neuroscience would make significant changes to Socionics - enough that Socionics would only be its ancestor.

Only a direct copying of it can be protected.

That was very Gamma of you, and I assure you the alphas are not on board.

It is an ethical issue. People who have something to contribute should be permitted the making of their contribution. The neurologists are claiming the power to judge ideas. This judgement is made without pity and without remorse. They are repeating the mistakes of the Freudians because they are, in essence, the same group. The neurologists see as their enemy the chaos with which people view each other. Most of them have a deep fixation on the causes of racism. It's something that they are wasting time with because in the end society will demand that even the evil be treated with dignity. If they want to go to hell, that's their choice. To deny them that choice is the denial of their free will, their very identity and personage. Most people are content to ignore racists, and beta ST EMs even get a high out of confronting them. The real function of neuroscience is to develop treatments for the dementias. In that regard they are delaying the solution to the problem by not working the socionics community, in particular.

There was a time when MBTI might have been a threat but that's long in the past now. If anything their continued dogmatism fuels the suspicions of the neurologists.

[tcaudilllg]

My impression is that tcaud understands the game of power much more than you do... The general assumption that scientists are honest and are there only for the truth is justified just up to a certain extent.

Yeah Climategate proved that, didn't it? Interrater reliability means shit when money buys the rating.

Plus some people just don't get it. Malformed functions, probably.

[tcaudilllg]

Take your pills, Grandma!

Of course, neuroscientists -- like the psychoanalytic, cognitive, and behavioral psychologists before them -- easily entertain and accept the validity of Jungian thought. They would never have paranoid delusions about its possible irrelevance, or non-existence, which would just as likely blind them to their own foibles.

The truth is that this is not the case. Most of them misinterpret Jung's ideas of the collective unconscious as mysticism, and judge everything associated with his legacy in that light.